metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You were fine until #4. Paul taught, much like Jesus taught, and the teachings covered a wide array of "doctrines". There is not any claim of just following one's spirit devoid of doctrine in the epistles.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The True Church
- Thread starter thedictator
- Start date
Thanks for the confirmation here, but I think you might have gotten me mixed up with Berserk? I was talking to him, not you lol
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Which is why I have to even have my wife wear her name-tag at home.
Sorry about that.First, the term "papa" is a Latin term for "father" and later for pope. In Greek, then, it is a Latin loan word.
As such, it is applied to a bishop before Leo, but not to a bishop of Rome.
Second, Leo is widely considered the first true pope because he is the first to be widely recognized as supreme in his ecclesial authority and because, as this video points out, he consequently claims to be "the heir of St. Peter."
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?
q=yutube+history+papacy+first+pepe+leo&view=detail&mid=605B0236992F9FF24F71605B0236992F9FF24F71&FORM=VIRHence, Leo is often rightly deemed the first Pope:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Leo_the_Great
Third, for Paul, apart from the Gospel of Christ's atoning death and resurrection. demonstrable spiritual power is more important than elaborate doctrinal systems:
"I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people [rival leaders] , but their power. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk, but on power (1 Cor 4:19-20)."
You underestimate how mystical and charismatic Paul is in his approach to the truth:
"My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power (1 Cor 2:4-5)."
Fourth, for Paul, apart from the Gospel of Christ's atoning death and resurrection. demonstrable spiritual power is more important than elaborate doctrinal systems:
"I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people [rival leaders] , but their power. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk, but on power (1 Cor 4:19-20)."
You underestimate how mystical and charismatic Paul is in his approach to the truth:
"My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power (1 Cor 2:4-5)."
As such, it is applied to a bishop before Leo, but not to a bishop of Rome.
Second, Leo is widely considered the first true pope because he is the first to be widely recognized as supreme in his ecclesial authority and because, as this video points out, he consequently claims to be "the heir of St. Peter."
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?
q=yutube+history+papacy+first+pepe+leo&view=detail&mid=605B0236992F9FF24F71605B0236992F9FF24F71&FORM=VIRHence, Leo is often rightly deemed the first Pope:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Leo_the_Great
Third, for Paul, apart from the Gospel of Christ's atoning death and resurrection. demonstrable spiritual power is more important than elaborate doctrinal systems:
"I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people [rival leaders] , but their power. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk, but on power (1 Cor 4:19-20)."
You underestimate how mystical and charismatic Paul is in his approach to the truth:
"My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power (1 Cor 2:4-5)."
Fourth, for Paul, apart from the Gospel of Christ's atoning death and resurrection. demonstrable spiritual power is more important than elaborate doctrinal systems:
"I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people [rival leaders] , but their power. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk, but on power (1 Cor 4:19-20)."
You underestimate how mystical and charismatic Paul is in his approach to the truth:
"My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power (1 Cor 2:4-5)."
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are rambling and really not establishing your point. On top of that, you are simply ignoring what the N.T. actually says over and over again, instead focusing on just one point of Paul as if it trumps all the other points he says. Either he taught or he didn't teach disciples a variety of things to believe in and do, and I would suggest that he clearly did.
At no point in time was the early church a loosey-goosey collection of do-you-own-thing type of "spiritualism", or whatever you wish to call it. It is said that Jesus "taught with authority", so what kind of sense would it make to suddenly have that authority become unimportant? Did he not bestow certain powers to the Twelve, such as those sins that they may bind, for example? It was not a group that just went along singing "Kumbaya" while tip-toeing through the tulips chanting "flower power!".
No, I'm not rambling and you are ducking my points. The theological coherence you impose on Paul is missing. His own thought clearly evolves over his epistles and he even has a different theology from his travel companion Luke. Early Jewish Christianity was a multiplicity of conflicting doctrines and practices. You are anachronistically imposing a doctrinal orthodoxy from a much later era onto the early church.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Please quote me when responding as I almost missed the above.
What points of yours am I supposedly "ducking"? Maybe it's best if you would be more to the point versus sermonizing, bringing other stuff in that are not part-and-parcel of our discussion.
OK, for the latter part, maybe it's best for you to go back and reread Acts and go carefully through the various epistles and maybe even write down the many teachings found within. The apostles clearly didn't put everything up for grabs. Yes, there is some give-and-take going on, which is typical for us.
As I have already explained, there was not uniformity in the church because of distances involved plus not everything was spelled out, but don't for a minute believe that the apostles and those appointed by them didn't teach dogma, and plenty of it.
So the title of "Pope" was first applied to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and not to the Archbishop of Rome. What exactly does this prove? Plenty of people before Pope St. Leo were saying that the Bishop of Rome has Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, and is therefore his heir. No one ever disputed that the Bishop of Rome derives its Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, in the East or West.
Yet, we have every evidence that episkopoi (bishops), presbyters and deacons were all ordained by the Church (I've already cited a few chunks of Scripture, but there's a lot more I can provide). St. Paul himself was ordained by the Church to be a missionary (see Acts 13:1-3). Just because a preacher was charismatic in the early Church by no means implies that they appointed themselves as episkopoi (bishops) or presbyters or deacons. If anything, St. Paul was admonishing those who were trying to do just that--trying to set themselves up as leaders in the Church, over and against the ordained presbyters, without being ordained themselves.
St. Paul absolutely did teach people to adhere to doctrine, and considered this to be very important. He says to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:5-7):
6 In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. 7 But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness
And two chapters later he says the following (1 Timothy 6:1-6):
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2 Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
In his letter to Titus, Paul says the following (Titus 1:7-9):
For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
And in the next chapter:
1 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine . . .
6 Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; 7 in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, 8 sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.
9 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.
In 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 we have this:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
And in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we have this: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
As you can plainly see, St. Paul was most definitely concerned with "doctrinal systems". Belief and faith were very important to St. Paul, and this includes especially believing the correct things.
EDIT: And I should also point out that it wasn't just St. Paul who was concerned about doctrine--both holding to correct doctrine and avoiding false doctrine. 2 John 1:9-10 speaks about the importance of sound teaching, as does Hebrews 13:9; Revelations 2:14-15 criticizes false doctrine, and then Acts 2:42 says how people devoted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles.
In addition, Acts 15 clearly shows that the Church did have a central authority in the form of the Apostles and the clergy coming together in council. Church councils such as these later came to serve as the highest authority in questions of doctrine and dogma in later centuries, and they all have their root in the Council of Jerusalem, here in Acts 15. The Church may have been far-flung, and there was no one church who dominated all the others, but there was indeed a centralized authority and a hierarchy of clergy to maintain order in teaching and authority.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thank you so much for spending the time to cover this so eloquently.
The application of the title "Papa" first to the bishop of Alexandria proves that it means "father," not "pope" and that it does not in itself imply a unique authority to Rome. True, the church of Rome gradually gained increasing authority, but Leo marks a transition towards the modern papacy by gaining an unprecedented level of universal recognition of his unique authority (see my links).
The charismatic nature of leadership in the Pauline churches means that demonstrable gifts are the basis of authority, not an old boy's network nor a structured hierarchy. The fact that you two continually treat the Pastoral epistles as if they were Pauline betrays your ignorance of modern biblical scholarship. Indeed, the Pastoral epistles from the late first-early second century mark the shift away from charismatic based leadership towards a structured hierarchy. Thus Ignatius of Antioch can now emerge as a monarchical bishop.
You must learn to read. I never denied the importance of doctrine for the early apostles. I merely pointed out that the experience of divine power was more important and that the widespread plurality of doctrinal views attests a lack of interest in systematic theology that we find in later centuries.
The charismatic nature of leadership in the Pauline churches means that demonstrable gifts are the basis of authority, not an old boy's network nor a structured hierarchy. The fact that you two continually treat the Pastoral epistles as if they were Pauline betrays your ignorance of modern biblical scholarship. Indeed, the Pastoral epistles from the late first-early second century mark the shift away from charismatic based leadership towards a structured hierarchy. Thus Ignatius of Antioch can now emerge as a monarchical bishop.
You must learn to read. I never denied the importance of doctrine for the early apostles. I merely pointed out that the experience of divine power was more important and that the widespread plurality of doctrinal views attests a lack of interest in systematic theology that we find in later centuries.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You simply have chosen to ignore what is actually written to put your own self-devised theology in, and you have chosen to ignore early church history because of the theology you and some others have invented. If there was any doubt about this, besides what is written in the scriptures themselves, then what we see written in the early 2nd century such suffice, so either you haven't read any of these sources or you have chosen to ignore them. I have studied and taught theology for many years (like 40 of them), so you are certainly not impressing me one iota.
If you ever can find it, get the book "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), who heavily documents the early writings. That book is worth its weight in gold. Or read some of William Barclay's (also Anglican) books on the early church, and even Martin Marty's (Lutheran) or Raymond Brown's (Catholic) books have good reputations.
Yes, the dynamics of the church has changed over the centuries, but it never was the loosey-goosey flower-power joke that you and some others have invented out of your own and their bias.
METIS: what is written in the scriptures themselves, then what we see written in the early 2nd century such suffice,
Poor diction!
Metis: I have studied and taught theology for many years (like 40 of them), so you are certainly not impressing me one iota.
Now you wax pompous. I have been Teaching Fellow at Harvard and a published theology professor for many years.
Metis: If you ever can find it, get the book "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), who heavily documents the early writings. That book is worth its weight in gold. Or read some of William Barclay's (also Anglican) books on the early church, and even Martin Marty's (Lutheran) or Raymond Brown's (Catholic) books have good reputations.
Mostly lightweights, compared to magisterial works like Hans van Campenhausen, Helmut Koester (see his work on early
Christian historical/ theological trajectories), and Bart Ehrman (see his new work on pseudonymity). You do cite Raymond Brown, but apparently have not read his NT Introduction through (see, e. g. his discussion of Pauline pseudonymity on pp. 662ff. [He cites with appoval that 80-90% of scholars embrace the pseudonymity of the Pastoral epistles.] and his comments on the evolution of Paul's theology on pp. 437f. Also, you need to research books on the diversity of distinctly Jewish Christian theology (Eblonites, Nazarenes, etc.) originating in the Jerusalem church, fleeing to Pella in the 60s AD, and spreading from there to other places, most notably to Aleppo, south of Antioch.
Metis: Yes, the dynamics of the church has changed over the centuries, but it never was the loosey-goosey flower-power joke that you and some others have invented out of your own and their bias.
As my preceding comments imply, you just haven't done your homework. btw, though a maverick, I consider myself in the conservative evangelical camp.
You create crude caricatures of what you dimly understand. The books you cite show that you are poorly read in major biblical scholarship.
Poor diction!
Metis: I have studied and taught theology for many years (like 40 of them), so you are certainly not impressing me one iota.
Now you wax pompous. I have been Teaching Fellow at Harvard and a published theology professor for many years.
Metis: If you ever can find it, get the book "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), who heavily documents the early writings. That book is worth its weight in gold. Or read some of William Barclay's (also Anglican) books on the early church, and even Martin Marty's (Lutheran) or Raymond Brown's (Catholic) books have good reputations.
Mostly lightweights, compared to magisterial works like Hans van Campenhausen, Helmut Koester (see his work on early
Christian historical/ theological trajectories), and Bart Ehrman (see his new work on pseudonymity). You do cite Raymond Brown, but apparently have not read his NT Introduction through (see, e. g. his discussion of Pauline pseudonymity on pp. 662ff. [He cites with appoval that 80-90% of scholars embrace the pseudonymity of the Pastoral epistles.] and his comments on the evolution of Paul's theology on pp. 437f. Also, you need to research books on the diversity of distinctly Jewish Christian theology (Eblonites, Nazarenes, etc.) originating in the Jerusalem church, fleeing to Pella in the 60s AD, and spreading from there to other places, most notably to Aleppo, south of Antioch.
Metis: Yes, the dynamics of the church has changed over the centuries, but it never was the loosey-goosey flower-power joke that you and some others have invented out of your own and their bias.
As my preceding comments imply, you just haven't done your homework. btw, though a maverick, I consider myself in the conservative evangelical camp.
You create crude caricatures of what you dimly understand. The books you cite show that you are poorly read in major biblical scholarship.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If you think you impress me with the above, think again. You make it sound as if there's been all sorts of "Breaking News!" on the theology front, but I got news for you, chum-- since the DSS, there really hasn't been much added since then that changes much of anything.
But if you're gonna try and get a theology book published nowadays, let alone try and sell it, ya gotta come up with a gimmick. Writing any kind of conventional theology will leave you with unpublished pages lining the bottom of your birdcage. Capice?
One of the most disingenuous traits nowadays has been to throw Paul under the bus to the point whereas some have even resorted to calling it "Pauline ___", or whatever. Even though Paul certainly seems to have some issue with James especially, why would the Twelve give him the time of day, especially considering his past, unless he became accepted? Did Paul teach some dogma? Only a complete fool would say no. All you have done is to take certain select verses and poof them to the point whereas they dominate the others, and that's nothing short of complete nonsense.
So, what has happened to you is that you have been so gullible as to swallow this "new theology" as if the wheel just got invented. Very little is theologically new over the last several decades, but some people with snake-oil agendas will try and tell others that there is, as you just did a couple of posts back.
What Shiranui did was to show you just how untenable your position is based on what actually is written, and I doubt he's a literalist, and I sure in hell ain't. Yes, context is important, but so many of today's "theologians" just seem to want to take what is written, toss it into the garbage so as to teach their own enlightened "theology"-- based on what??? What has in reality changed over the last few decades theologically?
I'm an anthropologist (now retired) who has studied theology in Israel including working on a dig just n.w. of Jerusalem near the edge of the highlands. What you are writing is nothing short of imaginary trash that simply does not make one iota of sense. If the church taught pretty much nothing, then just take your Bible and throw it into the trash, because that's all it's now worth. For you to claim that it's all just about some mysterious "spiritual" voodoo is silly beyond belief.
As you might note, I have pretty much no respect academically for those who simply are historical or theological revisionists, so if I come off a bit harsh, now you know why. Christianity certainly isn't all about dogma, but there's plenty of dogma that was taught, including by that guy named "Jesus", in case you haven't gotten that far.
End of "discussion", so write whatever you want as I have better things to do.
BTW, I'm not a Christian.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oops, I forgot to comment on the above piece of nonsense, so this will be my last post to you instead.
What you have done is to again rewrite "the book", completely ignoring the fact that the apostolic church was passed on through appointments with dogma being taught and changes gradually being implemented. Yes, there were groups who splintered away, which I previously had mentioned, but I'm not talking about them. In the long run, none of those groups survived, although that was sometimes often done with an iron fist.
There always was some "doctrinal orthodoxy", and it's literally crazy-talk to say there wasn't. As time went on, that orthodoxy became more expanded, and part of that was due to the various "heresies" that sprung up, some of them with their own set of scriptures. But with the "apostolic church", the mark of the church was not which scriptures you had but was was your clergy appointed by those appointees going back to the apostles. This is the "one body" that Paul kept talking about, not some theologically scatterbrained anything goes "theology". Paul taught conformity, and it's hard for me to imagine just how you seem to have missed that?
Now, one could argue to until the chickens come home to roost as to whether the "apostolic church" is the "true church", and I have nothing to do with that argument since that's pretty subjective. Nor do I pass any judgement on the various "heretical" churches that eventually emerged. Nor do I pass any judgement on which church(es) today are "truly Christian".
I really have no irons in this fire other than just an academic interest. But I betcha you have at least one iron in the fire going by what you have posted, as I strongly get the impression you're spouting some religious group's "company line".
Sorry to get rather heated-- I blame that on my French genes-- so...
Take care.
You have imposed your own agenda into my posts and thus read false ideas into my position; and obviously you are oblivious to the scholarly literature which I have brought to your attention. It seems best to start my own thread about the unity and diversity of early Christianity to clarify the real points at issue. Right now,, I'm far more interested in my new threads in the paranormal section. But watch for my new thread on unity/ diversity thread in this section.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I was saved seven years before becoming baptized. Following Jesus did not save me, Jesus saved me. As most Christians I had to grow in my faith and things have a way of coming when Jesus wants them to happen.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I doubt if there are two people (enough for Jesus to be in the midst) who would be both entirely true to God. So I believe the concept of a true church is a myth.
I believe even Jesus knows that the Church will not be true and that it doesn't have to be. It is true that the Church exists.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
One (or two) don't have to be perfect for Jesus to be in their midst, but they have to be faithful.
Philippians 3:13-14 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, [14] I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe we don't have to be true because all we need is Jesus and He is true to Himself. The reason the denominations do not agree is that they put themselves ahead of Jesus or just can't hear Him.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
John 4:23-24 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. [24] God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”